Parents, child service provider group sue DCS over subsidies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a one-two punch, a pair of lawsuits filed a week apart in December hit the Indiana Department of Child Services square in the gut over how the agency planned to reduce payment rates for foster and adoptive parents and juvenile service providers.

The suits have been combined in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana into a single piece of litigation that raises questions about how these per diem subsidy changes are calculated and what impact they could have on the overall child welfare and juvenile justice system.

Led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies (IARCCA), the cases both named as defendants the DCS and Director James Payne, a former juvenile judge in Marion County. The suits represent more than 100 agencies statewide and could potentially impact a class of foster and adoptive parents throughout Indiana.

But the case ties in with a broader picture that goes beyond the per diem payment rate changes that were set to go into effect in 2010 and those within Indiana's juvenile justice system say the DCS decisions could potentially have a detrimental effect on both the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. They claim the policies and decisions being made are jeopardizing effective treatment services and consequently tying judges' hands by reducing their options in doing what's best for children and families.

"This is very concerning because we must provide enough services so that we can, as judges, make reasonable efforts to reunite families and provide the services to children who need it," said Marion Superior Juvenile Judge Marilyn Moores, who pointed out she wasn't familiar with the two cases but has concerns after hearing about the issues. "Any disruption in the provider community is very concerning to judges because our concern is if there will be reasonable services available. If there's not, that jeopardizes what we do."

At issue in the now-combined lawsuits are DCS funds received and allocated under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which says the state must make foster care maintenance payments for qualified children to cover food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision, personal incidentals, liability insurance, and reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation. Federal law requires that the rates be sufficient to cover those costs, and in exchange for that payment the state DCS receives federal matching funds to cover part of the costs for those services to children.

In setting rates during the past two years, the DCS has scaled down any increases and frozen the rates paid to service providers as budget woes worsened for Indiana. By October, the expected cut for service providers was at 10 percent but it changed by Nov. 30 to between 14 and 20 per- cent with a stern warning from DCS that any provider that didn't agree to the rates within two weeks would have children in their care transferred to other providers.

For foster and adoptive parents, DCS sent a letter in early December notifying them that their monthly payments would be reduced by 10 percent starting Jan. 1, no matter when the placement or adoption took place.

That set the stage for the litigation, and when that DCS-imposed deadline for rate agreements came, the lawsuits began.

Service providers sue

IARCCA, an association of about 110 child welfare agencies providing services to about 4,600 children statewide, filed the first suit in Marion Superior Court Dec. 14. The focus is on the rate cuts announced earlier that month by DCS for agencies providing foster care placements and intensive residential treatment for abused and neglected children. Within two weeks it was removed to federal court, and IARCCA continued its efforts to stop DCS from implementing payment cuts it describes as arbitrary and based solely on budget concerns.

Specifically, the suit cites examples of those cuts, including: Indiana Developmental Training Center in Lafayette and Indianapolis, which services up to 64 and 96 kids respectively and would have to cut even more than the 29 positions already eliminated in both locations; and the Christian Haven residential provider in Jasper County, which expects to eliminate 40 positions including therapists and employees who provide direct care to children.

The suit makes three claims against DCS: It violated Indiana Code 4-22 by not setting reimbursement rates according to promulgated rules; it violated Title IV-E by not offering any written criteria or methods about rate changes and adequacy of what's proposed; and the agency violated the Section 1983 provision of the U.S. Constitution by acting under color of state law in setting arbitrary rates and violating the federal rights of IARCCA and its member agencies.

DCS declined to comment for this story because of the pending litigation, though spokeswoman Ann Houseworth said the agency hopes for a quick resolution and looks forward to continued partnerships with all those committed to the welfare of Indiana's children. After the cuts were announced in early December, DCS Director Payne issued a news release.

"These are incredibly difficult deliberations and everyone involved recognizes the magnitude of the decisions made," he said. "Like other state agencies and business entities, we have spent countless hours trying to find ways to reduce expenses and be good stewards of tax dollars while providing safe, quality care for children... The rate reduction, while unfortunate, still keeps Indiana foster care rates higher than most states."

IARCCA hit the DCS with its first blow within two weeks of the announcement. A second blow came a week later.

Parents follow suit

On Dec. 22, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed suit on behalf of two adoptive and foster families, with a combined total of nine children who are at the heart of the case. A motion for class certification has been filed, seeking to expand the case for any foster parents who are or will receive foster care maintenance from the DCS, and any current or future foster children for whom any payments are to be made through the DCS.

The lawsuit claims Payne and DCS failed to conduct individual assessments of families and the cost of providing for foster and adoptive children before deciding on the cuts, which will reduce adoption and foster care subsidies so much that parents won't be able to provide for the children's needs.

Both DCS cases have been consolidated, as they deal with similar issues and the same agency decision. A preliminary injunction motion filed Dec. 29 asks the court to stop the state from being able to initiate the reductions while the litigation is ongoing, and a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 20. A class certification request is also pending before the court.


While DCS litigation plays out in court, those in the juvenile justice and child welfare system are concerned the payment changes for foster and adoptive parents will cause more to turn away from these necessary roles, giving the courts and child welfare workers even fewer options for protecting children. Others see this as another piece in a larger puzzle of problems in the DCS in recent years as the DCS has gained more control of the juvenile justice system.

Judge Moores said she fully understands the financial pressures the state and DCS are under but that those monetary concerns can't be the underlying basis for these decisions.

"That was always the fear skeptics had about the DCS making the calls," she said, referring to controversy about the DCS having final say on out-of-state placements. "I fully understand the financial pressure the state is under, but if lower reimbursement rates drive providers out of business, there's a concern that there won't be appropriate services for families and kids.

"I don't know what the answer is," Judge Moores said, "but I certainly hope the best interests of children will remain the primary guiding force."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.